Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Apple Sued Over Software Update Patent
mark_wilkins writes "Microsoft and Apple have been sued by Teleshuttle Technologies, LLC, alleging that their online software updating technology infringes a patent on providing online updates to software with a menuing system to permit the user to pick the updates. Apparently the work on which the patent is based supposedly goes back to 1990."
At least we don't have to worry about "apt-get update" :-)
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
or is that somehow different ?
The link presented is what, a press release by the company doing the suing? That's a nice, unbiased viewpoint, there. I like how the "article" states "This move follows Microsoft's and Apple's delay in entering into licensing agreements with BTG on commercially reasonable terms." In other words, "we're suing them because they told us that we're full of crap and please get lost." I skimmed through the lengthy patent in question, and it's so insanely broad that I cannot imagine that it would survive a court battle with its claims intact. There's not one single mention of how any portion of the "technology" in question would actually do anything. It's just a description of how it would be used. It looks like someone patenting a type of car by claiming, "It has wheels, and it moves forward and backward and can be steered by a person or by some other type of steering control, give me a billion dollars right now, I'm a genius."
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
There are too many holes and gaps in the patent system. Everything is so vague you can patent a flying car... just on a plastic model alone with some BS blueprints.
What the hell are we supposed to do when this company seeks an injunction against Microsoft's Windows Update?
lots of people will be royally f*cked...
Where would you like to stifle innovation today?
...did they even try to sell the rights to the patent to either or both company, or just take them straight to court?
Either way, they must believe they have a really strong case to go up against two of the biggest cash reserves in the entire Western hemisphere at the same time.
... in case you are interested
This patent looks in order. Early enough that there's a low likelyhood of prior art, and it pretty well covers any auto-updating system.
My only thought is that maybe we could kill it with the obviousness clause.
Jay | http://oldos.org
Which is odd because patent attorneys, like Guybrush Threepwood, are a humorless lot.
No doubt the "patent" also applies to various Linux distributions, but obviously they're not being sued because there's little money in them.
With all the hubub over software patents being a danger to open source software, you have to wonder whether or not they're a bigger danger to commercial companies. After all, if you're going to sue someone you're going to go after a company with money. Even better if they're public, as you might be able to extort them into settling behind the scenes since a lawsuit might hurt their share prices.
"*Sneeze* Oh, I'm sorry... I'm allergic to bullshit." --Will Smith, "I, Robot"
Moderation Insight
In other news, I have just patented a method
of "getting to work" by "driving a car".
Unless they built, advertised, and SOLD a
product which does what they claim, so that
other companies could buy it, why should they
have any rights at all to an idea which is
completely obvious?
Lawyers don't sue people; clients sue people.
Lawyers don't award outrageous sums of money; juries (or judges) do.
Mundane Concept = Mundane Concept
Mundane Concept Online = Patent
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Sounds like apt-get blows them out of the water on prior art...
Lets kill all the lawyers, kill them tonight.
Just like every other tort or liability lawsuit, the lawyers on both side will get more money out of this than anyone else. Lawyers don't file suits about right and wrong, just about their bank accounts.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
This patent wasn't issued till 2003.
Does this mean that if someone works on something years ago he can patent it now and make it retroactive, suing anyone who was using the technology even though it wasn't patented at the time they started using it?
Stopping by for an oil change the Ford Dealer would inform me of a menu of Updates, most of which were required security updates (brakes / fan belt / etc).
So I think FORD owns the prior art rights to this one...
As much as I love to watch Microsoft feel financial pain, this is still yet another example of why software patents are a lousy idea. I shudder to think how much worse virus episodes would be if windowsupdate wasn't as convenient as it is.
I believe World War III will be triggered by fuqing patents.
Of course, the patent was FILED in April of 2000. I thought that's when art needed to be prior to. Meaning, of course, that the companies he's suing are prior art.
BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and in early stage ventures. We realize value through technology licensing, patent assertion and sale of equity investments.
This company does nothing but suck the blood of companies that actually produce profitable products.
1. Brainstorm interesting ideas.
2. Patent them, or buy other interesting patents from others.
3. Wait on somebody to use the idea in the mass market.
4. Sue for profit.
These guys are what SCO aspires to be.
There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.
Now remember, submarine patents are only funny when used against big corporations!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't patents only have a term of 14 years, that can later be extended to 28? Windows Update has been around for a while. Were these guys just waiting for the perfect time to strike, seeing as their patent is due to expire soon? Perhaps they were just waiting until it seemed like they had a good chance of winning, or they would be most likely to get a settlement and not have to win in court.
All of their patents mention the client automatically querying the server to present a list of software to add to the client. So, I think the windows update site itself is not covered by the patent, but the automatic feature might be. I've only played with macs for a little bit ( I'm allergic to Apples) I know they have an automatic update, but do they also have something simular to MS's Windows update site?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
maybe this is why microsoft is buying all these patents, so stuff like "SCO" and this doesnt happen to them..
keanmarine.com
I see two possible forks in the fate of this.
microsoft buys patent
microsoft sues Apple
microsoft sues Red Hat etc.
or
patent battsle with sco vs. everyone resolved ==> many years
patent battle with teleshuttle vs. microsoft resolved ==> 2 meetings with counsel
go figure.
Programming Language creators should include a provision in their license that forces programmers to use the copyright system and not the patent system with programs written in their language. In addition all software patent applications should require actual working code that is complex and novel enough to actually warrant a patent for the idea itself and not just a single expression of the idea as in copyright.
In the meantime congress should simply ban new software patents until the USPTO can be fixed.
... to all the various linux and bsd "update"package installation types? Apt, RHN, portage, etc, etc.
Here's the quick abstract from the link:
United States Patent 6,557,054
Reisman April 29, 2003
Method and system for distributing updates by presenting directory of software available for user installation that is not already installed on user station
Abstract
A method for distributing information to a plurality of uncoordinated user stations each of which is configured for communications with a multiplicity of independently-operated servers via a non-proprietary network includes steps for providing a distribution service that distributes updates for a plurality of different products, and providing a transporter software component to each of the plurality of uncoordinated user stations, wherein the transporter software component at each user station automatically effects communication sessions with the distribution service via the non-proprietary network for the purpose of obtaining updates for each of at least a subset of the plurality of different products that are installed on that user station. Moreover, a user station, which includes a storage medium, a plurality of different products installed on the storage medium, and transporter software installed on the storage medium for automatically effectuating communication sessions with a distribution service via a non-proprietary network in order to obtain updates for each of the plurality of different products, and a distribution service that distributes updates for a plurality of different products to a plurality of uncoordinated user stations via a non-proprietary network, are also described.
Certainly looks like it to me. Think of the mirrors for updates as well. Looks like it would apply.
It's time to just END intangible patents, cease and desist, it's a bad idea. I'm serious, they never should have been allowed the first non tangible patent. This is not going to advance the arts and sciences any over the long term except for the lawyers and paperwork shufflers guild, as they enjoy the "science" of counting money and spend some of it on expensive fine "art" to hang on their walls. Everyone else it just costs. It has gotten past annoying, past ridiculous, now it's into the harmful range.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But you for got that I have patented the idea of upgrading the patent system.
I found my inner child, then I got caught abusing it...
This was filed in April of 2000. Windows update definitely precedes this date. I'm not an expert on patent law by any means, but can you really do this? That is, invent something and then patent it ten years later after infringing products have already come on the market?
(Obviousity?)
At the time the patent was filed the idea probably was not as obvious as it seems to be now. In 1990 connectivity (and the resulting security issues) were present on a much smaller scale than they are today. (Note that I did not say the issues did not exist.)
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
People will sue for anything won't they? Lame.
A menuing system that loose you choose something? Wow, how novel.
I wish they would get rid of patents that merge two things that have already been invented. i.e., the fork with the fork on one side and knife on the other. Forks and knives have already been invented. Welding them together is not an invention.
Menus have existed for a long time, downloading software has existed for a long time. Using a menu to download software has existed since the 300baud BBSs I used to call.
I really don't get it. I could see if the code was ripped off line for line, but if two different programs have the same effect, but get it with two different ways, shouldn't they be concidered two different pattents? As an anlogy, a record player, a CD player, and an mp3 player all have the same basic function, to play back audio recordings. But thy're all protected by different patents. If I invent a new way to play back sound recordings, I can't be sued by the mp3-player patent holders.
However, if I write a piece of software, and include a function that someone has already patented, even if I write my code from scratch, I can be sued?
Isn't this the same as patenting an idea? Isn't there something in the patent law against this? Am I Missing something?
I've had the unfortunate experience of actually working with this asshole.
Personally, I think this guy should win the fucktard of the century award.
And I want to personally thank him for not warning me before slashdotting my network.
Yeah, I'm posting this anonymously on purpose, my boss would flip if he knew I was saying this about his 'valued' client.
Isn't there something in patent law that says you have to sue in a timely manner? These things have been going for years.
XandrOS has a GUI frontend for apt-get, or maybe XandrOS just didn't have enough to leech from?
Still though, what'd happen if XandrOS (or any other small software company) got sued? The big guys such as Redhat and SuSE could fight it, what about the little guy?
Filed: April 20, 2000
Sieg Heil!
"A method for distributing information to a plurality of uncoordinated user stations each of which is configured for communications with a multiplicity of independently-operated servers via a non-proprietary network includes steps for providing a distribution service that distributes updates for a plurality of different products, and providing a transporter software component to each of the plurality of uncoordinated user stations, wherein the transporter software component at each user station automatically effects communication sessions with the distribution service via the non-proprietary network for the purpose of obtaining updates for each of at least a subset of the plurality of different products that are installed on that user station."
It sounds awfully complicated, and that's only the first sentence. They could probably claim they own pretty much every updating technology with that...
Seriously though, providing "updates to software with a menuing system to permit the user to pick the updates" has been in every system I used, and I don't believe that adding the word "online" in front of it makes it a new super-innovative technology.
Even if it's Microsoft, if they were to lose on this one, it would be a shame.
"A vehicle which will transport passengers and cargo trough via a non-proprietary air. It includes steps for providing a distribution service that distributes people and cargo for a plurality of different destinations"
That's it, I own the flying car. All you bitches pay up.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Presuming that people here are linking to the right patent (and it looks like they are, the patent number matches that in the press release) it quite clearly gives the filing date as April 20, 2000. Does that mean they worked on it for 10 years, and got around to patenting it? Does that make a damn bit of difference with regard to prior art?
...storage medium for automatically effectuating communication sessions with a distribution service...
And then there are some wonderful bits of drivel in the summary, which pretty much screams "utter bullshit". Prime example is the following
This is just a two bit company (that can barely write) serving up half assed press releases claiming they own everything. That does sound familiar...
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
From the patent:
> communications with a multiplicity of
> independently-operated servers via a
> non-proprietary network
Hmmm. Would you consider Mac/Windows Update "proprietary networks," or a proprietary protocol on a non-proprietary network (TCP)?
Quoting the official site, about Richard Reisman (the "inventor"):
"This work draws on a decades of thinking about new media combined with diversified practical information technology and business experience - and on a visionary mind-set tempered by a sense for effectiveness honed by training in analytical methods for optimization. (see bio). Reisman also has a broad interest in the creative process and the business of innovation - and organized and moderated a symposium on "Patents for Dot-coms" for the MIT Enterprise Forum of NYC in April 2000."
And the title of the forum that Reisman moderated: "Fool's Gold or Mother Lode".
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'd get an injunction against each and every one of you.
While it seems that this Reisman guy may have been working on this technology since 1990, the patent wasn't filed until 2000.
So I think MS and Apple would just have to show they started using this tech before 1999 - i.e. it was public IP before the patent was filed.
Lesson: Patent early, patent often.
Dude, if you would bother to RTFA then you would see that it clearly sez that they tried to approach both comapnies, and they pretty much said "you're full of shit get lost"
Also, had you bothered to RFTA, you could have read the patent which is clearly weak at best. This is another SCO who is about to die a slow, painful, fiery death.
bash: rtfm: command not found
Perhaps if Microsoft is sued for more money than they can sue others (long shot), then they'll put some of their weight behind some better patent guidelines for software. Leaking money makes for good persuasion.
Of course, it'll probably be as small an improvement as will solve the issue for MS, and feels kinda dirty, but I'll take what I can get.
Wasn't Windows 98 the first MS OS to use the "Windows Update" process? That's menu-based (well, you have a list of updates and you select from that list which items you want to update... sounds like a menu to me)
With all the neutrality I can muster, does this not count as 'Prior Art'? in favour of Microsoft?
Patents last 17 years, and cannot be renewed.
Yup, that's two sentences.
Someday someone should come along and claim having a patent for 'a vehicle which travels on wheels'. Then they can really sue the hell out of everyone.
This is a combined Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/641,010, filed on Apr. 29, 1996, and entitled "COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED TRANSPORT OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION OBJECTS," which is a Continuation-in-Part of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/251,824, filed on May 31, 1994, and entitled "SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATIC UNATTENDED ELECTRONIC INFORMATION TRANSPORT BETWEEN A SERVER AND A CLIENT BY A VENDOR PROVIDED TRANSPORT SOFTWARE WITH A MANIFEST LIST," which as U.S. Pat. No. 5,420,820 on May 30, 1995, and U.S. application Ser. No. 08/982,157, filed on Dec. 1, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,125,388 and entitled "COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED TRANSPORT OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION OBJECTS," which is a Continuation of the aforementioned Ser. No.08/251,724 filed May 31, 1994 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,694,546). All of the above-identified applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
I count three "Continuation"'s in there, dating as far back as 1994.
There's enough prior art from the BBSs of the late 70s through the 90s. Hardware manufacturers, e.g., Seagate, would have their own BBS from which drivers and patches could be downloaded. Sure, it was dial-up, but it meets the requirements of being networked, menu-driven, with user-selectable updates. Prior art should kill this dead, followed by obviousness stomping it into the earth for good. I download my security patches from HP using an on-line, menu-driver, user-selectable process too.
This means hundreds of thousands of corporate computers will be safe from the windows update virus
Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
I just had the following patented:
"A method by which ideas of an individual or company can have their ideas recorded and checked by a goverenment agency. And then awarded full rights of ownership of idea."
I also sent a cease and disist letter to the US patent agency.
Well, for those of you who had read the "Apple settles Rendezvous trademark dispute", you would have noticed a link to thios story at the bottom of the previous story.
But for those who didn't, here's a link to a yahoo story for it
>I cannot imagine that it would survive a court battle with its claims intact.
But that doesn't actually matter, because nowadays you don't have to make money on patents per se, because you can make money more easily on playing the stock market, and patents -- combined with the stupidity of the press -- is a valuable tool for manipulators.
When the patent is voided the insiders will have cashed in and moved on a long, long time ago.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Al Gore suing the Internet for patent infringement?!
I was a very anti-patent follower and just now realized that patents do exectly what they ment to do, help(motivate) people to inovate. You must think that i am trolling, no just think a bit. Company X patents some idea and it is so good that every other company wants to use it. Ok, say patents did not exist then all other companies start to use it and no one want to invate anymore. In real world if you want to copy that idea and slack on R&D then you just pay some money and here you go. On the other hand Company Y desides that it needs something simillar and start R&D to develope some better or worse idea on how to acomplish same thing but in a better way. Now you got something to choose from - Company X or Y or etc...
Look at it, how many good things came out because of the nasty patent (PNG,OGG,some other things I can not remmember). So in the end people win , because they get more choice and better alternatives.
My 0.02JPY
Is it me or is some of these patents just stupid or just flat out greedy? I mean patent a new sprinkler or new kind of wrench or some kind of drug? But how to update X through a webpage.
I am thinking of getting some cigar smoking, piano playing monkeys to make up some patents...I bound to get one right and cheat my way to my first million...that is the American way...right?
Deserving got nothing to do with it.....shuffle
IOW, there are way too many ambulance-chasers convincing people on shaky ground to "go for it". All those "no cost to you unless we win" offers have led to a more-litigious society, and the IP lawyers have elevated this to a new art form...
* Not all lawyers are scum-sucking bottom-feeders. But their number is small and weakening steadily...
GTRacer
- The Spirit of the law, dammit!
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
They own the patent on an auto-update system with a menu, and have yet another way to try and attack the various Linux distros, not to mention Apple.
Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
Sure, Microsoft is getting sued this time. But Microsoft can afford it. They have a lot more to gain than to lose by patent warfare.
It's different for Apple, which doesn't have the dominant market share that Microsoft does (and thus the ability to quelch competition with their own suits).
Check it. I'm not a genius with the patent system, but something tells me that if the 'update system' isn't HTML based, it's not covered by the patent.
US Patent 6,557,054, claim 26: The method of claim 16, wherein the method is facilitated using an HTML viewer at the user station.
I hate software-related patents as much as the next guy, but the continual cry of "That's obvious" is getting tiring. If it was so obvious, why was there such a long period of time between the patent and when MS and Apple started using a similar system? Clearly, it took them years before they "saw the light."
Well, CEOs of both companies can subscribe to FFII US
http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl
and help them to combat the software patent nightmare. Unfortunately it was the BSA that lobbies for software patent law.
I don't believe in benefits of software patents for megacorporations, for me patent law in the field of software just reflects the interests of a patent attorney. Ever economist knows that patent law is crap in some field, no developer needs them.
It will be cheaper for them to contribute a donation for FFII or support their work than to pay money for patent trolls.
This is ludicrous. BTG shouldn't be allowed to wait for ten years to enforce their patent, and then sue for past damages. If BTG were being damaged, BTG should have filed suit earlier. This is nothing but a shakedown.
The good thing about it is that if Microsoft gets pissed off about submarine patents, they have the money and political influence to do something about it, like lobby Congress to reform patents. Unless, of course, the perceived benefits of their patent arsenal outweigh the occasional nuisance lawsuit.
Automatic updates have been around for a VERY long time. I would argue that since the development of a network connection, the idea has existed to send program updates via that very connection. In fact, a compiler is a digital medium for automatically updating source code into machine code, right? How long have compilers been around?
I used to read patents for fun (I liked the pictures), and I am certain that either the language is VERY specific on this patent, relating to the actual internet -- which didn't exist in 1990 as it does today, so the patent is probably moot against M$'s auto-update, or the patent is vague enough to be one of those "obvious" technology patents that would get thrown out if contested by M$'s law firm of Burn'em and Run (Robin Williams).
stuff |
Yes, very amusing. You have however overstepped your bounds with this little jest since I previously patented the idea of making a joke about another person having already patented something.
I expect your check (for 1 BILLION dollars, and yeah say it like Doctor Evil) by 8:00AM tomorrow or you will be hearing from my lawyers.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
This is a disease which afflicts the patent system. People are not patenting brilliant, innovative, inobvious ideas, but just "staking out territory".
Also, this patent was filed in 2000. If this work dates from the 1980's, as is stated in the post, then an enabling disclosure or marketing of the technology may have occurred before 1999, and the patent will be questionable.
It may be that Applie and Microsoft think they can attack this patent, which is why they didn't cut a deal.
This is overwelmingly wounderous
news
time for everyone to switch to linux now
I keep hearing this sort of thing here, but apperently the USPO has different standards than most people here, becouse the broadness of this patent is pretty common.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The "Selden patent" on the automobile was affirmed by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in roughly 1910-1920. There was a patent organization of auto manufacturers created to license automobile manufacturers, and lots of manufacturers paid (including many makes still around today), and the only company that refused was Henry Ford--who defended their suits, advertised his willingness to indemnify all customers for any liability for buying his cars, and ultimately won on appeal.
trying to read that patent. It's no wonder patent attorneys make so much money! And I thought linux documentation was dull (except for the occasional schizophrenic programmer who goes off in the comments).
I have believed for some time now that patenting business processes is just plain stupid, but from what I was able to comprehend in this patent, it does not seem like a standard business process patent. If they are able to prove that they own this kind of updating service method, Microsoft, Apple and a number of others could be in some pretty hot water. There is potentially a lot of money involved with this kind of thing. The fact that they have not enforced their patent against these big name companies might hurt their chances.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
Teleshuttle also admits prior art in their patent app:
They further go on to to say that RemoteWare requires expensive client side software, and this is why their product is innovative. Because they won't charge as much money for it.
They also say that RemoteWare only communicates with RemoteWare systems. So does Windows Update and Software Updater... You can't very well use Windows Update on a Linux box. Not usefully, anyway.
Just for the sake of recording prior art:
HelixCode (then Ximian, then acquired by Novell) produced an installer and updater that shipped in March 2000 and pre-dates the patent applications and did what is described there:
* tracking existing software.
* identifying new software packages.
* identify software updates available.
* install those, resolve dependencies.
* communicated with a server to fetch this information.
* Worked for Debian and RPM systems.
* It used HTML to render the information (like
this patent claim says).
This patent contains 376 claims, most of them
regurgitations of the previous one, and most of
them were done.
I remember that MandrakeSoft had something
similar, but I can not remember if they had it
before or after, I remember thinking that this
was a significant value added over the Red Hat
distribution (back in the day when Mandrake
was a relatively small fork).
Miguel
Ben Franklin gave away his invention to mankind and it is still used throughout the world today. Thank goodness ol' Ben didn't want a government granted monopoly (ok, the patent system didn't exist then) because there is no way to improve on a simple piece of metal driven into the ground to conduct electricity.
On the other hand, I kinda wish he had gotten a patent. I would love to see a product called "Ben Franklin's Rod" on the market.
It seemed somehow oddly appropriate that when I saw this article on /., there at the top of that same page were 3 adds from firms with pitches such as "See how easy it is to file your own patent.". :-(
That would be trademark law - and it's defend, not sue.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
That's Informative?
Here is the press release in case you are interested
You're absolutely right. Part of the problem, though, is the plethora of IP-rights consultants out there preaching to any copy willing to dish out a few dollars that IP is the NEXT HOT COMMODITY (TM).
Basically, since the US isn't building much of anything anymore (even software now), the only thing left for big companies is their IP. Consultants are telling them to file fast and furious for patents and to begin managing their IP portfolios.
And politicos are being lobbie furiously to protect IP both in the US and overseas. Hence, the goldrush to patent stuff nowadays.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
A method by which a plurality of alleged inventors may submit a plurality of patent applications to a plurality of patent offices using a computer network, connection to which may be facilitated by a plurality of independent service providers over a variety of communication methods, including but not limited to telephone lines, cable television connections, satellite uplinks, digital subscriber line technologies and paper cups tied together with a piece of string.
(I call this method 'e-mailing a patent attorney')
107 words and two commas in the first sentence which is probably the most vague thing that has ever been written in the english language. I for one propose that this patent be thrown out on grammatical grounds alone.
Seriously though, how did Jeffrey Gaffin, and Tammara Peyton (The patent examiners) allow this to pass? Just the Abstract alone covers any method for installing software on network-connected heterogeneous machines.
What exactly do we (the U.S. taxpayers) pay the patent office for anyway? Right now it seems that we are just paying to be screwed over.
Filing Suit vs MS or Apple on IP, Patent, and similar issues seems to be a good way to generate funds. Why? Lawyers aren't going to file the suit if they don't see it being at least somewhat valid, thus the odds are that MS will either buy your IP outright, or offer a large sum for an unlimited use license.
Or they could use their resources to litigate you out of existence. The possible reward seems equal to the risk...
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
I'm pretty sure the mutation only served to contaminate the unix species.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
its ironic that http://www.btgplc.com/ is running on IIS. Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:37:57 GMT it would be bad if they couldnt do windows updates ;)
"BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and ... " blah blah blah
Translation: We sue people.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
About BTG
BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and in early stage ventures. We realize value through technology licensing, patent assertion and sale of equity investments. Through a multidisciplinary approach, we apply intellectual property and commercial expertise, together with specialist skills in science and technology, to create major product opportunities in the health and high tech sectors. BTG has commercialized important innovations, including Magnetic Resonance Imaging, working closely with Professor Sir Peter Mansfield, who was jointly awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize for Medicine, and others who made contributory inventions to MRI. BTG has also commercialized Multilevel Cell Memory, Campath(R) (alemtuzumab), the first monoclonal antibody treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and recombinant Factor IX blood clotting protein. BTG operates through wholly owned subsidiaries BTG International Ltd. and BTG International Inc. in the UK and USA, respectively.
Or, to summarise, they do nothing.
you're giving the BNP free exposure that's not necessarily negative - if some evil nazi wants to find like-minded people, they now know where to look.
The more small-guy submarine patents that try to torpedo the buy guys, the better. Even better yet if they succeed. It increases the likelihood of the big guys eventually getting together and lobbying against software patents in general.
Of course they'll probably try to make it to their advantage anyway.
Random and weird software I've written.
Because the people that really need to be sued is the USPTO for incompetently issuing patents on ideas that are trivial to anyone practicing in the field.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
IBM had a diagnostics box in the 80s, that did everything this patent claims. Rather than attach over a network, it attached directly to a system.
sorry but I have patented the idea to be paid by check of 1 BILLION dollars so you have to forward the check to /me.
thank you in advance for compliance
I skimmed a bit of the patent and it refers to the software being offered from a non-proprietary network. Does that mean that if Apple and MS prove that their networks are, in fact, "proprietary", then the patent doesn't even apply to them?
"COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED TRANSPORT OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION OBJECTS"? I realise that's the title rather than a claim, but it does sound like intent to stake out any networking whatsoever.
The patent wasnt awarded to them until April 2003 according to the story. So it's only been about a year.
:p Just FYI
Not that I'm defending them or anything
Joseph?
This is not too recent a problem.
I recall a letter to either Popular Mechanics or Popular Science, from an inventor, complaining that the patent he was awarded was too broad.
He was trying to patent an ergonomic grip for a wheelbarrow - he received a patent on the wheelbarrow - a device with centuries of prior art.
Caution: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.
its good and bad i guess.. what about things like the Mandrake Control Center which has a nice "menu update system"..
are they basically saying that no operating system is allowed to have a type of easy updating system??
its seems like a necessity considering there are many programs, operating systems, and distributions of linux, that use this type of online update method..
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
... And then go lie in the bed that they made.
I'm not ashamed to be an American, but I am surely ashamed that the RIAA, MPAA, Patent Office, SCO, etc are located in America. Guess every country has to have their corporate thugs and those that foster them. Sheesh...
They wouldn't be the only ones.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
...and the doctrine of laches says that's not allowed. They could almost certainly have asserted their right years ago. Windows Update has been around for yonks.
I don't think you didn't read the patent :
"...wherein the transporter software component at each user station automatically effects communication sessions with the distribution service via the non-proprietary network for the purpose of obtaining updates for each of at least a subset of the plurality of different products that are installed on that user station."
Neither your BBS nor HP online system fit the bill, they are not automatic. What they are complaining about seems to refer to Windows Automatic Update and the Apple equivalent, where the user is automatically presented a list of updates that are available based on what is installed.
Yes the patent sucks BTW.
commission based lawsuits are good thing. they allow for 2 things to happen.
1 people without mney can have access to court. if there is a tort,or liability, almost every company in existence has the policy of completely ignoring the other party claims until they are dragged to the door of the courtroom. simply put, this is a free bet, that the plaintif might just go away,and if this happens it cost the company exatly zero to do this.
2 it makes for more honestlawyers. why? because no lawyer in their right mind will take on a case they feel will lose. this equates to not only a lossof time,money (filing, costs, ect), but also reputation. nothing worse than being a lawyer with a rep for being a loser.
in conclusion, almost everylawsuit is "on shaky ground". Law is not a real science. Physics, chemistry, etc are real sciences. They have proven repeatable results. Law does not. It is a human art, at best, and con art most of the time, with money and connections (usually bought with money) as the closest thing you will see to proven, repeatable results in any field of law.
of Global Patenuclear War.
i wish for the good old days... now, it looks like i'll have to become a lawyer if i want to make it anywhere in this world.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
About BTG
"...BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and in early stage ventures. We realize value through technology licensing, patent assertion and sale of equity investments...."
In other words, we [BTG] are parasites. We add no social or technology value to any society or company. We take and not give.
I read the article and part of the patent (skimmed the rest). I obviously missed the "automatically" keyword, my apologies. If BBSs aren't sufficient prior art, how about systems setup with auto call-home modems using async or kermit? Neither of those protcols are proprietary and might meet the criteria.
I described such a system in a short class I was doing on a whiteboard in 1982. Prior enough to the patent for you?
I'm sure I remember seeing modem dialup bulletin board systems implementated by companies such as Hayes, Hercules etc..., that allowed you to download updated device drivers for your home PC. And that was back in the 1980's.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
My prior art will defeat your patent in court. I have no doubt of this. Once when I was seven I drew a "prototype" of a "1 BILLION" dollar check to pay my little brother for one of his action figures I wanted and my mom kept it because she thought it was cute.
You bring those lawyers buddy and we'll see just who's going to be walking away with the bank!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Those who use this phrase pejoratively against lawyers are as miserably misguided about their Shakespeare as they are about the judicial system which they disdain so freely.
Even a cursory reading of the context in which the lawyer killing statement is made in King Henry VI, Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2, reveals that Shakespeare was paying great and deserved homage to our venerable profession as the front line defenders of democracy.
The accolade is spoken by Dick the Butcher, a follower of anarchist Jack Cade, whom Shakespeare depicts as "the head of an army of rabble and a demagogue pandering to the ignorant," who sought to overthrow the government. Shakespeare's acknowledgment that the first thing any potential tyrant must do to eliminate freedom is to "kill all the lawyers" is, indeed, a classic and well-deserved compliment to our distinguished profession.
Analysis
Don't get me wrong, too many lawyers are motivated by money then either justice or law. But using this quote against them is like using F=ma to explain why you drove drunk and hit a church.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
you could not patent ideas. I mean, you can patent the design of an engine but you can't patent combustion. These guys didn't create updates, nor menus, and combining the two isn't so much as a creation as it is an idea. I hope the judge throws em on their rear before they make it to the stand.
Is that this is a company based in London. There is no way they could attack a European based company since software patents are as yet still not honored. But they can root through the U.S. legal system like pigs. U.S. companies live by patenting, lawyering, and shaking down their competitors for cash. If only Europeans would allow us to file software patents in their countries, U.S. companies could return fire and start the global shakedown!
Actually, that's possible. Collect relevant prior art and petition the USPTO for a re-exam. Then once you win several re-exams, petition the Congress not to siphon off so much of the USPTO's revenue into the general treasury.
You've completely confused patents vs. copyright. Copyrights protect the expression of an idea, and your arguments are more-or-less correct w.r.t. copyrights.
Patents exist to protect an idea. And yes, you can come up with the idea completely independently, and express it differently, but still be in violation of a patent. That's pretty much a requirement for patents to be useful. Otherwise you could just look at the patent but claim you hadn't.
There is substantial prior art on updating over networks without HTML (Debian's apt, GNU Stow, and the older programs on which they were based come to mind). Given that many people were converting programs from custom interfaces to an HTML interface (well before this patent), combining the two *is* obvious. To be non-obvious, it would have to do some particularly insightful thing as part of the implementation. However, like most software patents, it doesn't include a real implementation (implementations are the only things that are patentable, not ideas or theories).
Also, what long time between the patent and when MS and Apple started using a similar system? Most of the patent claims are from 2000, roughly the same time as MS was implementing its system. It's not out of the range of possibility to say that the claims were added because Microsoft's system was accomplishing them.
Hrm...that's a bit biased ain't it?
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
I am going to sue Microsoft, Apple, Intel, AMD, and the US Gov't.
What am I going to sue them for? Eh it doesn't matter - I am just hoping they will decide to settle and make me rich.
Sometimes I wish we used the UK legal system - if you sue someone, and you lose you have to pay their legal fees. (I am not sure if it is included in the law, but hopefully it states somewhere "reasonable" legal fees, as I can see someone saying their lawyer costs 1 million per hour).
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
There really is a lot of cool stuff being developed by companies motivated by financial gain secured by patents on the eventual by-product of the research.
That's total balderdash.
Name one.
If BTG waited a minimum of six years before attempting to enforce their patent, then Microsoft, et al can claim the doctrine of laches. IANAL, but if BTG originally applied for this patent in 1996 (with a continuence in 2000) then eight years have passed before they attempted to enforce this patent and the doctrine would apply as a defense. Meaning Microsoft and others will avoid having to pay damages to BTG for violating their patent prior to the suit, but not future violations. Microsoft would have to stop using Windows Update.
I can't see Microsoft or Apple just rolling over on this issue and I think the real reason for the suit is $$$$. BTG wants money as evidenced by their ridiculous claims and is hoping that MS and Apple will pay to make the problem go away.
As you pointed out, I hope everyone is happy with the state of software patents.
Eventually every company will be infected, i.e., sued. But, will corporate America ever get wise enough to do something about it?
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
--> From a 1987 Newsgroup Post:
Sometime in late May or early June I was talking on the phone with TJ and the subject of networking the BBSs together came up. "Wouldn't it be neat if one Fido could automatically call another and send it messages and files -- automatic software updates!" That night TJ logged into Fido 10 and uploaded FIDO_DEC V6, a brand new program called FIDONET, and a new system file called "NODELIST.BBS." With that, FidoNet was born.
There are two sorts of software patents. First there are those that represent some new, significant innovation that took some sort of inventor's skill to create (like LZW compression). These things shouldn't be patented because of the peculiarities of software.
Then there are the dumbass patents, like this one... things that, if they were meatspace instead of software, wouldn't deserve a patent either. You know the kind. One-click shopping. Automatic updates.
See, we have a whole pile of things we can do with software, so many that there are combinations that are obviously useful but haven't been tried yet. These don't deserve patents. Back when this patent happened, widespread use of the internet was relatively new, and people were just starting to apply it to stuff. Radio over IP! Voice over IP! Weather! Live porn with webcams! Webforums! Shopping (with cookies, to do the one-click thing)! Auction houses! Automatic updates!
None of this stuff is patentable, or would be patentable even in a land with software patents. It would be kinda neat to have a wi-fi stove, f'r instance, that would IM me when my food's done. But this is in no way patentable, since it's just sticking two things (that really were innovations) together.
The Debian dselect utility did all this (well, it didn't use HTML) in 1995.
It would seem that Symantec's LiveUpdate falls into the same category... see http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=liveupdate&OS=liveup date&RS=liveupdate. It would seem from Symantec was talking about this feature in 1996 http://www.symantec.com/press/1996/n960916b.html/, well before filing date of 4/20/2000 for the patent in question.
Let's do this again.
Software patents are good, because..?
Doesn't this already make it blazingly obvious to everyone that software patents are nothing but WEAPONS, used by corporations to destroy each others' business?
I'm utterly at loss trying to understand how some people are unable to realize this fact.
...here is it.
t ml
t .html
In an 1980 article about Bulletin Board systems (which are more or less "menu driven" by selecting from the few commands available, displayed at start-up), there was already the idea of swapping files - a way to do software updates: "We also are considering a function that would allow swapping complete programs."
Here's the full article:
http://www.portcommodore.com/commodore/bbs/cbbs.h
Here's even more information on early BBS and even the invention of the XModem-Protocol:
http://www.portcommodore.com/commodore/bbs/bbshis
As even some of the earliest implementations of XModem-capable programs showed you a list of downloadable files that you could select with your cursor keys and download by pressing a key - presumable "d" - you could speak of speak of "menu driven downloads". And as this was used by developers to share patches and updated programs it was certainly "menu driven updates over a network".
Given the above facts, they can put their patent where the sun doesn't shine - if there's still space left, that is.
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
"All your patent are belong to us"
I'm almost positive I could download and install Q-Link updates in the late 80's. Q-Link went on to become AOL. November 5, 1985.
And almost every online game does this. Ultima Online anyone?
Or am I missing something?
One of the patents referenced as Related Applications turns out to be a circuit patent from TI, and the name isn't found anywhere in the USPTO database. The other Related Application looks like it's describing FTP - pulling down something from a remote server and putting it into local storage.
This guy has a great history of taking the obvious and making it a patent.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
Like Synaptic, which clearly fall under this "patent". Same with Redhat Update.
I'm surpised they didn't bother to file the rest of the lawsuits. Norton has an update GUI that looks like this, and I'd wager a dozen other pieces of software as well. The type of whorish, intellectually dishonest individual who usually files these suits is usually more efficient.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
One possible patent reform for software (short of getting rid of software patents altogether) would be to require a non-trivial algorithm.
This would eliminate all your "dumbass" patents, but allow LZW. Significant new algorithms *should* be patentable, IMHO.
Let me first state for the record that I am happy that story was published, even if it was not my submission.
OTOH I posted this story a full 9 hours before this submission and it totally sucks that it was rejected by one ed, taking it out of the wait queue; while another ed chooses to publish the same story by a much later submitter.
And this ain't the first time either. I broke the story on US-CERT suggesting that we all dump IE in favor of other browsers - wham Rejected - and a few hours later - there it was - as someone else! /. - we have a problem.
Now, are we supposed to track the preferences of the various eds, guess which one is on the prowl by looking at the latest stories and then post appropriately? One omelette, many chefs!
Darn, I shoulda gone AC on this - Bye bye karma.
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
Please mister patent man, get rid of those silly software patents. They are of no use and only ruin everybody's day.
Thank you.
So dont get on my case about the 9 hour claim - I recant on that !
And of course, I fully expect someone will point out that I did post later, so just mod me down and end my misery.
Of I go to eat my crow pie
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
...are slightly optimised implementations. Just in case anyone thought I'd made a typo. (Oh, and that s is intentional - I'm a Scot)
No, we don't have a problem. Editors select stories that they think should go up. That's their right. Some editors will have different preferences. There is nothing wrong or unexpected about that. This is their site, not yours.
Fucked up
(I call my message 'universal language')
CPAN was created in 1995.
TODO: come up with a clever sig
Thats not really the issue here - we are talking about the same story - I am pointing out that there is proably a provess flaw which takes a story out of the queue and drops it in the trash, even if another editor would like to publish it .
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
"*Sneeze* Oh, I'm sorry... I'm allergic to bullshit."
--Jeff Vintar (screenplay) and Akiva Goldsman (screenplay)
The same holds true in Canada as well. The loser in a ***CIVIL*** trial pays the loser's legal fees, including the cost of filing the suit, representation, lost wages, etc. The idea is that if you sue me and I win, I won't lose any money.
One of the types of damages is "actual damages", which include all legal bills and other things for which you have a receipt. (Not exactly true, but close enough.) Thus, in order to have the lawyer's bill paid by the courts, you'd have to have paid the bill yourself first. So, if you wanted to pay your lawyer a million dollars an hour, they'd have to be paid out of your pocket. However, I don't think the judge would buy the "million dollars an hour" argument; if one of the reciepts is totally out of line, then you could potentially be charged with fraud. Obviously if your lawyer is on staff, you're not paying them $2 billion a year.
The US is one of a few countries where there isn't a loser-pay system. I remember watching some show on an American station where a lawyer spent her day suing people for no reason, simply because all the lawyer is ever out of pocket is the price of filing the complaints. The lawyer had ruined many lives by forcing people to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in legal fees, lose time from work, etc.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Nope. Green and Newcombe invented the bagless vacuum in 1927. Green went on to form Rexair in 1929. Rexair vacuums have been bagless for nearly 80 years. They're now marketed under the Rainbow name but they're essentially the same product.
If Dyson claims to have invented the first vacuum that "doesn't lose suction due to clogged pores in your vacuum bag" in 1992, then I see a problem with prior art. Dyson's claim would be overly broad and clearly invalid.
More likely, Dyson's claims are much focused around the "cyclone" engine and dust-trap. Rexair's systems use the Newcombe particle separator or newer "hydrofilter" water trap.
Rexair unfortunately only sells through its distribution network (like Cutco knives). That dramatically limits its customer base, and I have no idea why. But there's always eBay!
anyone else find it strange that 4 of the last 5 stories have been about apple?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Since (according to conventional wisdom here on /.) Apple writes bug free software, why would they need an on-line update service at all?
Best Buy can have you arrested
Ok. May not be the highest paid job but know that there are positions that can make a big big big difference in the lives of many. Actually there is a deputy CIO position that is open at the USPTO.
Apple and microsquish on the same side of a lawsuit
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
Drop the menu.
Go back to the command line on their Web site.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Even though some of these old patents come and sting big companies, you know the big companies will never push for better patent law, they will only push for whatever benifits them the most and everyone else the least, maybe the law will change so that patents wont apply if the infinger has already made x amount of money from it or if stopping the infringement would 'cause noticable harm to the economy and would be a security risk because the US government uses the product' or maybe 'any company whos name begins with M can infringe patents' - you'll know if its this one if Microsoft suddenly starts registering every combination of M.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Lets get this thing moved to the top of their list of absurd and stupid patents.
GRiD (makers of the first laptop) provided a menu-driven server update system for its software in the early 80's, called the 'Load Center'.
Apple does not deserve to mistreated in such way.
Is it me or this kind of "patents" are stupid, a patent for a menu systems that prompts the user what update to install ?
Who grants those patents ?
Unix its simple, but sometimes it takes a geniuos to understand the simplicity -- Dennis Ritchie
he cannot mod you up in this trhread, stupe.
Actually, I'm wondering if FidoNet fits this description...
Time to kill Nortons LiveUpdate. I guess everyone will manually have to update their Virus protection now.
Life is not for the lazy.
What does a patent by TI on a DRAM circuit have to do with this?
"This is the dawning of the age of litigation..."
(In my best Sally Struthers voice:)
"Do you want to make more money? Sure, we all do. Now you can study at home to learn to be a rabid intellectual property lawyer! The Shark Institute just might be for you! --Just listen to what people are saying about our graduates..."
"Your graduate helped me make mountains out of mole hills! I'm banking on your graduates to keep us in business and make me rich. Without them, I'd just be another Silicon Valley loser. Thanks!" Daryl McBride, SCO
"Thanks to the quick thinking model of 'integration' and 'innovation' your graduate helped me fend off the evil Netscape and the US government from infringing on our God-given right to obliterate any competition! " --Bill Gates, Microsoft
"I wish your program had been around back in my days at Xerox PARC. I'd have Steve Jobs AND Bill Gates by the short-n-curlies right now!" Anonymous former CEO of Xerox
[...I'd better stop there; I'm getting depressed]
*the author cannot verify these are actual statements by the endorsees*
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
It looks like the patent specifies displaying a menu of software that isn't already installed on the computer. I don't know about Apple's system, having no experience with it, and I don't know about RedHat's either, but Microsoft's update site falls into that category.
As far as I can tell, something like Cygwin's setup program wouldn't, because it displays everything that's available and gives you the option to install, uninstall, upgrade or downgrade (depends on the program and what versions are available, of course).
IANAL, but it seems that way to me after reading the claims...
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
Considerations like that don't seem to matter when it comes to software patents. So we see people patenting the mouse, the GUI, "one click shopping", to do lists, update services and all manner of obvious and done ideas. They don't even bother with a useful description, just a business method or other vague description.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If the method that is patented is obvious to someone working in the field, the patent can be thrown out. I have a hard time seeing how allowing someone to pick an update from a menu is anything but obvious.
shouldn't someone have to produce a working example instead of just patenting an IDEA for software?
surely this would stop 90% of software patent applications even being made.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
"Hey Bill." "Steve." *nods* "So...what're you doing here?" "Getting sued." "Really? So are we!" "Well isn't that a sonofabitch!"
hi
It's been almost two decades, but I there was a menuing update software that was in use in a school's Apple II computer lab near me back in the 1987-88 timeframe when I was just moving on to college.
The machines were networked with twisted pair cable and used an AppleTalk protocol to communicate with an AppleShare server. When booted from a (slightly customized) floppy the machines ran a startup program that pulled a list of software from the server and compared to what was on the floppy. This wasn't commercial software, these were programs and docs the teachers had written and were capable of being downloaded to the boot disk. The idea was that since this wasn't copyrighted software, the students could take home their floppy if they had access to a home computer. Because floppy disks couldn't hold much information, the system only downloaded or updated the particular files the user chose from a menu (it was too small to mirror everything from the Mac II hard disk). The ability to update already downloaded programs and docs was absolutely a necessity since teacher written code would often have bugs and need to be re-distributed multiple times per week. (These were teachers NOT programmers.)
Was this a commercial utility? Was this a facility of AppleShare? Was this something that one of the smarter teachers just cooked up on his own? I have absolutely no idea. It was just a very simple, obvious, menu-driven, networkable, software-update system that was in use in the eighties.
Would this pre-date the claim made in this patent? If more information could be tracked down about this, it sounds like it might destroy the patentability of a 1990 claim to the idea. But I'm not a lawyer so this may very well not meet the legal standards to call into question the patent.
There going to have to work together, on this one.
And what will that lead to?
This is brilliant! Using newsgroup archives that stretch back some 20 odd years to provide evidence that a patent is not novel or non-obvious! I think I shall patent this concept :-P
It appears to me that there are some ways for a software update system to avoid this patent if the courts screw up and let it stand. IANAL and I haven't thoroughly studied the patent.
If your update program does not ask the user which programs to install until AFTER it has downloaded the updates, the patent does not apply. Yes it wastes some bandwidth but it is much nicer from the users perspective (as long as they have the bandwidth). Your computer doesn't pester you to install updates until it is in position to actually do it. Whether it is based on downloading from mirrors of central server, bittorrent, or NNTP, it is not "receiving from the remote computer system over the communications network software indicated by the selection" if it downloads all software in a collection rather than software selected by the user. Nor would it be infringing if the user selects which software to delete. Claims 271 and 362 might possibly affect this (the wording is very vague) but all the other claims include or reference a claim that specifically indicates the system downloads software selected by the user. If it downloads the software before the user makes the selection, then it isn't downloading "software selected by the user".
apt-get like systems that just ask yes or no but don't present a selection menu are not covered.
...the surreptitious installation of software without the user's knowledge or direct consent - so that adware vendors/scum could be sued for patent infringement?
money piles eh? i think ill just stack 1$ bills against their 20s, and victory is mine
Oceania has always been at war with Microsoft
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Dated June 1999
Don't get me wrong!
I thought one of the conditions for a patent was that the invention had to be novel and non-obvious?
.sig going around along the lines of: "Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. Patents are about having the inspiration, letting someone else do the perspiration, then suing them for it."
Where's the novelty and originality in sending a list of available updates (let's call it a catalogue) to a client, and having the client order the stuff they want from the catalogue that they don't already have?
Most of the articles referenced in the patent provide all the prior art required to dismiss the patent - the only thing different with this "invention" is that it is cheaper because it doesn't involve "special" equipment (in the days when modems were not all compatible with each other) or an expensive subscription (such as to a case law product).
If this patent had been presented in 1990, it might have been original. But between 1990 and 1998 there was a lot of work in the distribution of software using the Internet - many products started to have "home pages" where you could open up the web page (in an HTML viewer, for example) which would list the available packages, and the user would select the new packages to download. The obvious extension to this is to provide the user with a catalogue of already-installed software. The obvious extension to that is to get the computer to check the catalogue of available versus the catalogue of installed packages and present the user with the differences. The obvious extension to this is to allow the computer to automatically download the differences, and perhaps even install them.
Don't suppose anyone has scripts left over from the University days where they'd get a listing of a BBS or FTP archive, and start downloading the stuff they didn't already have?
I guess TT decided that applying for a patent was easier than writing software. There's a
So you don't like slashdot anymore, and you're not going to visit this site anymore or post any more mindless whining offtopic crap?
YAY!
You seem to feel that if this is the case, then it's some sort of dire problem that hurts us all. It's not. This is a site that says "We found these stories interesting." It's maintained by several people, so there are going to be inconsistencies, and yeah, some stories will be missed. It's not that big of a deal.
And think about if it was not the case - then having multiple editors gains you nothing. The workload for ten editors would be the same as for one; they'd still have to look at the same number of stories. I know I wouldn't want to work like that.